Skip to main content

Full text of "Early Salem County"

See other formats

F    142 
.S2    J7 
Copy    1 

KDarlu  C^a/e/n  L^ountu 


By  Edson  Salisbury  Jones,  Port  Chester.  N.  Y. 

Glc/  S-oft   S/fsSor^ 

C/Ae  I^efeupe  and  %  ledger  C/racf 

CAjnoadwai^  ana  tne  *JOraciaa^  ,yiouse 

^ohn  KTenivicli' s  c:fraife 

SOCIETY.  DECEMBER  10.   1907 


(s^arlu  C^alem   i^ountu 

By  Edson  Salisbury  Jones.  Port  Chester.  N.  Y. 

Gld  3-ort   &lfs6orff 

Une  i^efeure  and  J,  ledger  Uract 

CAJroadivai^  ano  the  KAjraoivai^  >ylouse 

^ohn  C^enivicl^' s  K^rave 

SOCIETY,    DECEMBER   10,   1907 

^CB  3  1009 


Early  Salem  County 

In  the  intitial  portion  of  this  paper, 
tlie  situation  of  a  long-lost  landmark 
has  been  clearly  established.  In  the 
remaining  sections,  one  of  the  largest 
tracts  of  land  possessed  by  Fenwick's 
grantees  has  been  treated;  proofs  are 
offered  that  Broadway  was  not  named 
for  Edward  Bradway,  and  that  he  never 
built  a  house  upon  that  highway;  and 
the  location  of  John  Fenwick's  grave 
Is  considered,  as  well  as  the  movement 
to  erect  a  monument  to   his   memory. 

Old   Fort    Elfsborg 

W  hat  was  the  situation  and  what  the 
construction  of  this  fort  erected  by 
the  Swedes  in  the  vicinity  of  Salem, 
and  in  what  year  was  it  built?  Gor- 
don, Johnson,  Mulford,  Hazard  and 
Shourds  tell  us  nothing  of  its  char- 
acter; but  its  position  has  been  as- 
signed to  two  localities,  and  the  year 
of  its  erection  has  been  variably  stated. 
Several  old  maps  seem  to  place  it  near- 
er the  mouth  of  Salem  Creek  than  the 
present  projection  of  land  known  as 
Elsinborough  Point;  but  judging  by  the 
shore  lines  of  the  Delaware  as  they 
now  are,  the  latter  location  would  seem 
to  be  the  more  reasonable,  in  one  view, 
because  there  the  river  is  narrowest 
until  New  Castle  is  reached,  and  the 
object  in  erecting  this  fort  was  to 
command  the  stream  and  govern  the 
passage  of  the  Dutch,  or  any  who  were 
inimical  to  the  Swedes.  It  is  well 
known,  however,  that  tne  shore  line 
between  Salem  Creek  and  Elsinborough 
Point  has  been  receding  for  many 
years.  At  the  time  this  fort  was  built 
undoubtedly  the  mouth  of  the  creek 
was  much  nearer  the  western  shore  of 
the  river  than  it  Is  at  present.     Again, 

the  whole  vicinity  of  Elsinborough 
Point  is  marshy,  and  for  that  reason 
not  desirable  or  probable  for  such  a 
structure.  Nevertheless,  in  Johnson's 
opinion,  the  fort  was  erected  there,  for 
in  Hazard,  71,  we  read  the  following: 

"Some  uncertainty  exists  as  to  the 
precise  location  of  Fort  Elsinborg;  it 
has  usually  been  placed  upon  the  creek, 
but  upon  inquiry  in  the  neighbour- 
hood, and  especially  of  an  old  resident 
there,  the  author  is  led  to  believe  that 
It  was  situated  three  or  four  miles 
below  Salem  Creek,  at  a  point  which 
has  long  been  known  as  'Elsinburg 
Fort  Point.'  So  early  as  November  12, 
1676,  'a  conveyance  by  warrant  was 
made  of  1000  acres,  by  John  Fenwick, 
to  be  set  out,  limited  and  bounded  at 
and  near  the  point  heretofore  called 
Elsinburg  Fort,  and  hereafter  to  be 
called  Guy's  plantation.'  There  was  a 
large  body  of  marsh  on  both  sides  of 
a  creek  then  called  Fishing  Creek;  'on 
the  south  side  of  this  creek  was  an 
island  of  upland,  on  which,  I  well  re- 
member, were  three  well-sized  trees; 
on  this  island  of  upland  I  understood 
the  fort  formerly  stood,  nor  have  I 
ever  heard  any  Salem  county  man  lo- 
cate it  in  any  other  place.'  'This  is- 
land was  most  judiciously  selected  for 
the  erection  of  a  fort,  being  protected 
by  the  river  on  the  west;  on  the  north 
by  Fishing  Creek,  turning  east  and 
south;  on  the  south  by  an  immense  ex- 
panse of  wild  marsh.'  "  The  foot-note 
to  this  paragraph  reads:  "For  these 
facts  I  am  indebted  to  the  kindness  of 
Col.  R.  G.  Johnson,  the  well-known  au- 
thor of  a  small  History  of  Salem,  N.  J.. 
and    one    of    the    oldest    inhabitants    of 

Salem,    who    has    favoured    me    with    a 
long   letter   on   the    subject." 

Here  we  have  the  view  of  our  local 
historian,  expressed  during-  the  last 
century.  In  his  little  book,  page  7,  he 
conveys  the  impression  that  Fort  Elfs- 
borg  was  built  in  1631.  Now  let  us 
see  what  light  is  to  be  obtained  as  to 
the  year  of  erection,  character  and  lo- 
cation of  this  fort,  from  men  who  not 
only  saw  it  but  wrote  about  it  during, 
and  within  a  short  time  after,  its  con- 

On  August  16,  1642,  Queen  Christina 
appointed  Johan  Printz  Governor  of 
New  Sweden,  as  the  land  along  the 
Delaware  claimed  by  the  Swedes  was 
then  called.  Printz  arrived  at  Fort 
Christina  [now  Wilmington,  Del.]  on 
February  15,  1642-3.  (Campanius,  70.) 
Andries  Hudde  was  in  the  employment 
of  the  Dutch  at  New  Amsterdam  [now 
New  York],  and  on  October  12,  1645, 
was  appointed  Commissary  for  the 
South  River,  as  the  Delaware  was  then 
de.'^ignated.  On  October  22,  1646,  Hudde 
made  "A  brief,  but  true  Report  of  the 
Proceedings  of  Johan  Prints,  Governor 
of  the  Swedish  forces  at  the  South- 
River  of  New-Netherland,  also  of  the 
Garrisons  of  the  aforesaid  Swedes, 
found  on  that  river,  the  first  of  Novem- 
ber, 1645."  The  translation  of  this 
report  begins  with   these  words: 

"What  regards  the  garrisons  of  the 
Swedes  on  the  South-River  of  New 
Netherland  is  as  follows: 

"At  the  entrance  of  this  River  three 
leagues  up  from  its  mouth,  on  the  east 
shore,  is  a  fort  called  Elsenburgh,  us- 
ually garrisoned  by  12  men  and  one 
lieutenant,  4  guns,  iron  and  brass,  of 
12  pounds  iron  (balls),  1  mortar  (pots- 
hooft).  This  Fort  is  an  earthwork  and 
was  ordered  to  be  erected  there  by  the 
aforesaid  Johan  Prints,  shortly  after 
his  arrival  in  that  river.  By  means  of 
this  fort,  the  above  mentioned  Prints 
holds   the  river   locked    for   himself,   so 

that  all  vessels,  no  matter  to  whom 
they  belong  or  whence  they  come,  are 
compelled  to  anchor  there."  (Col.  Hist. 
N.  Y.,  12.  28-9.) 

In  1655,  there  were  published  at 
Hoorn,  Holland,  "Short  Historical  and 
Journal  Notes  of  Several  Voyages" 
made  by  Capt.  David  Pietersz  de  Vries, 
a  skillful  seaman  who  had  also  been 
a  master  of  artillery  in  Holland's  em- 
ploy, and  had  established  a  colony  on 
the  western  shore  of  the  Delaware  in 
1631.  He  left  that  colony,  but  returned 
to  the  river  on  a  trading  vessel.  He. 
was  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  Del- 
aware, and  piloted  this  ship.  Under 
date  of  October,  1643,  we  read  the  fol- 
lowing in  the  translation  of  this  Jour- 

"The  13th,  sailed  by  Reed  Island,  and 
came  to  Verckens-kil,  where  there  was 
a  fort  constructed  by  the  Swedes,  with 
three  angles,  from  which  they  fired  for 
us  to  strike  our  flag.  The  skipper  ask- 
ed me  if  he  should  strike  it.  I  answered 
him,  'If  I  were  in  a  ship  belonging  to 
myself,  I  would  not  strike  it  because 
I  been  a  patroon  of  New  Netherland, 
and  the  Swedes  were  a  people  who 
came  into  our  river;  but  you  come  here 
by  contrary  winds  and  for  the  purposes 
of  trade,  and  it  is  therefore  proper  that 
you  should  strike.'  Then  the  skipper 
struck  his  flag,  and  there  came  a  small 
skiff  from  the  Swedish  fort,  with  some 
Swedes  in  it,  who  inquired  of  the 
skipper  with  what  he  was  laden.  He 
told  them  with  Madeira  wine.  We 
asked  them  whether  the  governor  was 
in  the  fort.  They  answered.  No;  that 
he  was  at  the  third  fort  up  the  river 
[New  Gottenberg],  to  which  we  sailed, 
and  arrived  at  about  four  o'clock  in 
the  afternoon,  and  went  to  the  gover- 
nor, who  welcomed  us.  He  was  named 
Captain  Prins.  •  •  •  The  19th.  I 
went  with  the  governor  to  the  Minck- 
quas-kil  •  •  •  I  staid  here  at  night 
with     the    governor,    who     treated    me 

well.  In  the  morning  ♦  •  *  I  took 
my  leave  of  the  governor,  who  accom- 
panied me  on  board.  We  fired  a  sa- 
lute for  him,  and  thus  parted  from  him; 
weighed  anchor,  and  got  under  sail, 
and  came  to  the  first  fort.  Let  the 
anchor  fall  again,  and  went  on  land  to 
the  fort,  which  was  not  entirely  finish- 
ed; it  was  made  after  the  English  plan, 
with  three  angles  close  by  the  river. 
There  ■  were  lying  there  six  or  eight 
brass  pieces,  twelve-pounders.  The 
skipper  exchanged  here  some  of  his 
wines  for  beaver-skins.  The  20th  of 
October,  took  our  departure  from  the 
last  fort,  or  first  in  sailing  up  the 
river,  called  Elsenburg."  (N.  Y.  Hist. 
Soc.   Col.,    2d  S.,   3.    122-3.) 

From  these  contemporary  accounts 
we  learn  that  this  fort  was  begun  after 
February,  1643,  but  had  not  been  com- 
pleted by  October  20th  of  that  year; 
that  it  was  an  earthwork  structure  in 
the  form  of  three  angles;  and  that  it 
was  located  close  to  Delaware  River, 
at  Verckens  Kill, — not  on  an  island 
nearly  surrounded  by  marsh,  three  or 
four  miles  below  Salem  Creek.  Was 
Verckens  Kill  the  "Fishing  Creek"  of 
Johnson?  No:  for  in  the  deed  from 
William  Malster,  conveying  Windham 
to  Roger  Milton,  the  land  is  described 
as  fronting  on  Virkins  Kill  alias  Salem 
Creek  (Salem  Deeds,  2.  32);  and  in  Col. 
Hist.  N.  Y.,  12.  610,  we  see  the  com- 
mission appointing  Malster  and  five 
others  to  be  overseers  or  selectmen  "In 
Verckens  kill  or  hogg  Creeke,  common- 
ly called  Salem  or  Swamp  Towne,  & 
parts  adjacent." 

Guy's  plantation  of  1000  acres,  re- 
ferred to  in  the  information  given  by 
Joanson  to  Hazard,  stretched  along 
Delaware  River  about  two  miles,  from 
Salem  Creek  on  the  north  to  Locust 
Creek,  near  present  Elsinborough 
Point.  At  the  time  of  the  survey 
(1676),  this  land,  "at  and  near  the  point 
lieretofore  called  Elsinburge  fort,"  was 

in  Guy's  possession  by  virtue  of  his 
deed  from  Fenwick,  and  was  then  call- 
ed Guy's  Point  or  plantation.  (Salem 
Sur.  1676,  p.  45;  Fenwick's  Sur.,  14.) 
Seemingly  Locust  Creek  was  Johnson's 
"Fishing  Creek;"  and  what  is  now  call- 
ed Elsinborough  Point  was  known  in 
Fenwick's  time  as  Kymball's  Point. 
(Salem  Deeds,   3.  99.) 

In  May,  1654,  Printz  was  succeeded 
by  John  Rysingh  as  governor  of  New 
Sweden,  and  the  first  act  of  the  latter 
upon  his  arrival  was  to  capture  Fort 
Casimir  (New  Castle)  from  the  Dutch. 
In  the  next  year,  the  Dutch  wrested 
this  fort  from  the  Swedes,  took  from 
them  Fort  Christina  and  Fort  New 
Gditenberg,  and  drove  the  Swedes 
from  Delaware  River.  According  to 
Governor  Rysingh's  official  report  of 
the  capture  of  these  strongholds,  the 
Dutch  in  seven  ships,  with  six  or  seven 
liundred  men  aboard,  arrived  in  the 
South  River  on  August  30,  1655,  "and 
anchored  before  the  Fortress  of  Elfs- 
borg,  which  was  then  dismantled  and 
ruinous."  (N.  Y.  Hist.  Soc.  Col.,  2d  S., 
1.  443.)  In  the  Dutch  account  of  the 
expedition,  no  hint  is  found  that  Fort 
Elfsborg  was  in  a  condition  to  be  a 
factor — but  the  contrary  impression  is 
conveyed,  for  in  Stuyvesant's  letter  to 
his  Council  we  read  that  the  Dutch 
ships  came  to  anchor  before  this  fort, 
and  remained  there  three  days,  during 
which  time  they  arranged  their  forces 
in  five  sections,  in  preparation  for  the 
attack  upon  Fort  Casimir,  to  which 
they  proceeded.  (Col.  Hist.  N.  Y.,  12. 
101.)  Acrelius  tells  us  that  Fort  Elfs- 
borg was  "abandoned  by  the  Swedes 
and  destroyed,  as  it  was  almost  impos- 
sible to  live  there  on  account  of  the 
gnats  (myggor);  whence  it  was  for 
some  time  called  Myggenborg."  This 
fort  was  in  ruins,  therefore,  more  than 
twenty  years  before  Fenwick's  arrival 
in  1675;  and  in  Johnson's  time,  no 
Salem  County  man  with  whom  he  con- 

versed  knew  where  it  had  been  situat- 
ed. Its  site  had  probably  been  sub- 
merged many  years. 

That  it  was  an  earthwork,  thrown  up 
in  the  form  of  three  angles — like  points 
of  a  star,  has  been  proved  herein  by 
the  testimony  of  eye-witnesses;  but  in 
a  paper  recently  read  before  an  His- 
torical Society  in  this  State,  and  print- 
ed In  a  local  newspaper,  we  find  the 
following    erroneous   description    of   it: 

"The  fort  was  constructed  of  huge 
logs  hewn  from  the  heavy  timbers  sur- 
rounding the  site,  and  doubtless  had 
the  additions  usual  to  that  class  of 
works,  a  deep  mote,  high  embankments 
and  strong  lines  of  palisades,  the  latter 
chiefly  to  guard  against  the  incursions 
of  Indians." 

In  the  newspaper  print,  there  is  an 
accompanying  illustration  of  this  fort 
(as  tlie  author  imagined  it),  which 
shows  a  log  building,  rectangular  in 
shape,  and  with  a  gable  roof  surmount- 
ed by  a  cupola.  Seemingly  the  struc- 
ture is  placed  upon  a  plot  of  ground, 
also  rectangular,  and  raised  above  the 
surrounding  land,  such  plot  being  em- 
banked with  horizontal  logs.  A  sen- 
try is  seen  near  one  corner  of  the 
building;  another  is  walking  his  beat 
between  it  and  the  shore-line,  along 
which  tall  grass  grows;  not  far  from 
the  fort  is  a  large  log  house;  and  with- 
in a  stone-throw  of  the  shore  appears 
the  stern  of  a  ship  flying  a  Swedisli 
man-of-war  flag.  This  wholly  mislead- 
ing picture  needs  only  a  band  of  men- 
acing Indians  in  the  distance  to  com- 
plete it;  for  there  is  abundant  proof 
that  the  Swedes  and  aborigines  were 
very    friendly. 

Before  dropping  the  subject  of  early 
defences  in  this  vicinity,  it  is  well  that 
an  error  in  Jolinson,  54,  be  corrected. 
In  his  version  of  Mary  Fenwick's  let- 
ter of  February  7,  1678-9,  we  read  with 
relation  to  Mrs.  Lefevre — "I  found  she 
had  some  design  to  make  a  fool   upon 

tlie  view,  and  to  have  thy  concurrence 
therein;  but  I  do  not  understand  the 
design,  so  must  leave  it  to  thy  discre- 
tion and  address."  Johnson's  expres- 
sion, "fool  upon  the  view,"  is  non- 
sense. The  words  in  the  original  let- 
ter are  "fort  upon  the  river."  So  Mrs. 
Lefevre  had  an  ambition  to  fortify  Sa- 
lem  County. 

The    Lefevre    and    Pledjfer    Tract 

This  section  of  land,  comprising  6000 
acres,  was  the  first  in  this  vicinity  to 
be  occupied  by  any  of  Fenwick's  gran- 
tees, and  its  owners  had  seated  them- 
selves upon  it  before  Fenwick's  arrival 
(Salem  Sur.  1676,  pp.  45-6;.  though  it 
was  not  surveyed  until  November  12, 
1676  (Fenwick's  Sur..  15).  According  to 
N.  J.  Arch.  1.  414,  this  tract  was  known 
as  "Packagomack" — an  Indian  name, 
thought  to  have  meant  land  lying  low 
along  an  inland  body  of  water.  It  was 
bounded  north  by  Mannington  Creek 
and  the  lower  portion  of  Swedes  Run; 
west  by  Salem  Creek;  south  by  the 
lower  part  of  Fenwick  Creek,  by  Keas- 
bey's  Creek — early  called  Great  Mill 
Creek,  '  to  a  stream  flowing  northerly 
into  it  and  named  Smith's  Creek  in  the 
survey  of  Smithfield  (but  later  called 
Mill  Hollow  Creek),  and  by  a  line  run- 
ning from  the  latter  stream  due  east 
for  nearly  a  mile,  where  it  turned 
soutli;  southeast  by  Alloways  Creek; 
and  easterly  by  a  line  starting  on  this 
creek,  about  half  way  between  Quinton 
and  Alloway,  and  extending  east  of 
north  to  Swedes  Run,  which  it  touched 
about  three-quarters  of  a  mile  east  of 
the  confluence  of  tliat  stream  and  Lime- 
stone Run.  This  tract  was  divided  into 
six    lots   by   its   owners. 

The  first  lot  was  nearest  to  Salem 
Creek,  and  comprised  900  acres,  called 
Lefevre's  Chase,  which  Lefevre.  Sr.. 
conveyed  to  his  son  in  1687.  (Salem 
Deeds.  4.  44.)  Lefevre.  Jr..  sold  100 
acres  in  the  north  end  of  it  to  Jonathan 
lieere,  in  1688;  200  acres  in   the  middle 

portion  to  James  Barrett,  in  1690;  and 
the  remaining  600  acres,  in  the  south 
end,  to  Rothro  Morris,  in  1700.  (Salem 
Deeds,    4.   75;    5.    118;    7.    12.) 

The  second  lot  adjoined  the  first,  on 
the  east,  and  was  owned  by  Pledger. 
In  the  southerly  section  of  it  was  his 
"Netherland  Farm,"  which  he  devised 
to  his  son,  John.  The  northerly  por- 
tion was  Quiettitty,  or  Sandyburr 
Wood,  comprising  500  acres,  which 
Pledger,  Sr.,  conveyed  to  Christopher 
Saunders  August  10,  1680,  and  Saunders 
gave  to  Jonathan  Beere  and  wife  in 
1686.   (Salem  Deeds,   7.  196;   3.  224.) 

During  this  last  spring,  a  party  visit- 
ed what  was  supposed  by  its  members 
to  have  been  Quiettitty,  which  has  been 
referred  to  as  an  Indian  village,  and 
'"the  first  seat  of  John  Pledger  in  Fen- 
wick's  Colony."  The  writer  under- 
stands that  the  visitors  believed  this 
place  was  situated  on  the  south  side  of 
Mannington  Creek,  to  the  east  of  the 
thoroughfare  running  southerly  from 
the  Salem-Woodstown  road  to  Quinton. 
Si'ch  a  location  for  the  Quiettitty  of 
record  is  erroneous,  and  makes  it  a 
part  of  the  544  acres  sold  by  Pledger  to 
William  and  Joan  Braithwaite  in  1689, 
Vihich  latter  land  was  in  the  fourth 
lot.  Quiettitty  was  an  Indian  name, 
the  meaning  of  which  is  thought  to 
have  been  a  place  where  bushes  grew 
along  the  bank  of  a  stream.  The  rec- 
ords do  not  disclose  it  as  an  aborigine 
village.  The  ownership  of  Quiettitty 
was  early  in  dispute  between  Michael 
Barron  and  Lefevre  and  Pledger,  and 
a  suit  for  the  possession  of  it  was  de- 
cided against  Barron,  on  appeal  to  the 
New  Castle  Court.  Barron  alleged  that 
he  had  a  grant  from  Governor  Carteret 
long  before  the  division  of  the  Prov- 
ince; that  under  it  he  had  purchased 
from  the  Indians,  in  1671,  600  acres 
called  "Quiettetting;"  that  for  several 
>  ear-s  he  had  made  improvements  and 
a   beginning  of  settlement  upon   it,   but 

was  hindered  by  Fenwick's  threats. 
Lefevre  and  Pledger  claimed  the  land 
as  included  in  their  6000  acres.  The 
Judges  at  New  Castle  decided  that 
Barron  had  forfeited  his  right  to  Quiet- 
titty by  not  settling  upon  it  within  a 
proper  time.  In  this  suit,  .Christopher 
Saunders  deposed  that,  in  the  fall  of 
1679,  he  had  built  a  small  house  on  the 
land  by  Pledger's  order.  (Printed  New 
Castle  Rec,  336,  387-8.)  The  record 
shows  that  this  was  the  first  house 
erected  at  Quiettitty;  and  it  was  con- 
structed four  and  a  half  years  after 
Pledger's  coming.  It  is  certain  that 
Pledger  did  not  first  reside  there,  for 
we  know  that  he  seated  himself  at 
Bereton  Fields,  and  he  is  called  of  the 
latter  place  at  all  times  when  his  dom- 
icile is  specifically   named. 

The  bounds  of  Quiettitty  clearly 
prove  that  it  was  a  part  of  the  second 
lot,  and  its  situation  is  further  defined 
by  other  deeds.  In  the  conveyance  by 
Lefevre,  Jr.,  to  Beere  of  the  100  acre.s 
at  the  north  end  of  the  Chase,  the  land 
sold  bordered"  the  south  side  of  Man- 
nington Creek  for  40  perches;  adjoined 
Saunders'  land  on  the  west;  and  was 
bounded  south  by  Puddle  Dock  Creek. 
Now,  Puddle  Dock  Creek  flows  westerly 
into  Salem  Creek,  on  the  north  side  of 
"Denn's  Island."  Consequently,  Quiet- 
titty lay  west  of  the  present  Salem- 
Sharptown  road — not  east  of  the  Sa- 
lem-Woodstown highway.  In  1692-3. 
Beere  sold  the  600  acres,  comprising 
both  of  these  parcels,  to  Bartholomew 
Wyatt  (Salem  Deeds,  5.  239),  and  the 
deed  states  that  all  the  land  was  "at 
Quiettitty,"  thereby  making  the  amount 
equal   that  claimed  by  Barron. 

The  third  lot  adjoined  the  second  on 
the  east,  was  owned  by  Lefevre,  and 
the  line  between  the  two  ran  south 
across  the  lower  portion  of  Myhoppin- 
ies  Creek.  In  I'iSO.  Lefevre  sold  4n" 
a<res  in  the  northeast  part  to  William 
Rumsey;   in  1693,  conveyed  400  acres  in 


the  northwest  portion  to  Roger  Carary;  ' 
and  in  1696  sold  200  acres  in  the  south- 
erly   part    to   widow    Joan    Braithwaite. 
(Salem  Deeds,  2.  15;  5.  275;  6.  44.)     The  j 
widow's   portion   of   this   third   lot   was 
bounded      southerly      by      Hollybourne  • 
Creek     (the    upper     part     of     Fenwick  | 
Creek,    flowing    west),    and    in    her    will  j 
she   refers    to   it  as   "Hollybourne  Pas-  ! 

Hollybourne.    Lefevre's   plantation   of 
200   acres,   where  he   resided,   lay   south 
of    Hollybourne   Creek,    between    Acton 
station  and   Penton.     In   1696  he  sold  it  ■ 
to  Joseph  Pledger.  [ 

The  fourth  lot  was  owned  by  Pledger. 
It  lay  between  the  third  lot  and  the  \ 
easterly  line  of  the  whole  tract.  Out 
of  the  westerly  portion  of  this  lot,  and 
bordering  Limestone  Run,  Pledger  sold 
544  acres  to  William  and  Joan  Braith- 
waite in  1689.  (Salem  Deeds,  5.  15.) 
The  remainder  of  the  fourth  lot  Pledger 
devised  to  his  son,   John. 

The  fifth  lot  was  in  the  southea.-^t 
corner  of  the  main  tract,  south  of  the 
fourth  lot.  It  was  owned  by  Lefevre. 
and  known  as  Petersfleld.  In  1679.  he 
agreed  to  sell  300  acres  of  the  easterly 
portion  to  George  Provo.  to  be  called 
Provo's  Holt,  but  it  passed  to  William 
Willis.  In  1690-1,  Lefevre  conveyed  700 
acres  in  the  westerly  part  to  John  Wor- 
lidge  and  wife,  who  sold  600  acres  of 
it  to  William  Kenton  in  169.'?.  Kenton's 
widow  married  Hugh  Middleton,  and 
in  1698  he  received  a  conveyance  of 
tliis  land  from  Kenton's  son.  (Salem 
Sn;  1.  8-9;  Fenwick's  Sur.,  30;  Salem 
Deed.i,   5.   105,   293;   6.   238.) 

The  sixth  lot  was  situated  west  of 
the  fifth,  and  in  Quake;  Xeck.  between 
Fenwick  and  Keasney's  Creeks.  Of 
this  lot.  80i>  acres  in  the  easterly  part 
was  Pledger's  plantation,  called  Bere- 
ton  Fields,  the  northerly  portion  of 
which  bounded  Hollybourne  on  th»" 
west.  This  plantation  Pledger  devised 
to    his    »  >n.    '^oseph.    together    wit^    the 

remainder  of  the  sixth  lot.  Joseph  de- 
vised all  his  land  to  his  wife,  Mary, 
who  subsequently  married  Hugh  Mid- 
dleton. Middleton  devised  the  800 
acres  called  Bereton  Fields,  where  he 
dwelt,  to  his  son,  John,  who  died  under 
age,  whereby  his  sister,  Mary,  became 
possessed  of  the  land.  Mary  married 
Benjamin  Vining.  Vining  devised 
"Barrenton  House"  and  the  800  acres 
where  he  resided,  to  his  son,  John.  The 
description  of  this  land  in  Vining's  will 
shows  that  its  south  line  was  coinci- 
dent with  the  north  line  of  Smithfield. 
from   which   it   extended   northerly. 

Shourds.  473,  locates  Lefevre  on 
Quaker  Neck,  and  says  that  he  "erect- 
ed upon  the  tract  a  large  brick  resi- 
dence in  1707.  The  building  is  still 
standing,  and  is  owned  at  the  present 
time  [1876]  by  George  Griscom.  of 
Salem."  Wherever  Lefevre  built  his 
house,  he  did  not  erect  it  in  1707,  as 
he  was  dead  ten  years  earlier,  and  had 
sold  Hollybourne  in  1696.  Shourds" 
chapter,  entitled  "Ancient  Building.*;.' 
needs  considerable  revision. 
Broartivay    and    the    "Bradway"    Houne 

Shourds.  35,  tells  us  that  "As  early 
as  1676  the  street  now  known  as  Broad- 
way was  laid  out  and  called  Wharf 
Street,  and  several  town  lots  were  laid 
Dut  and  surveyed  on  said  street;  one 
for  Edward  Bradway  before  his  arrival. 
(Containing  sixteen  acres,  commencing 
near  the  public  wharf  at  the  creek, 
and  running  up  the  street  a  certain  dis- 
tance, and  from  the  line  of  said  street 
a  northerly  course  to  Fenwick  Creek. 
In  the  year  1691  Edward  Bradway  built 
on  his  town  lot  a  large  brick  house 
which  is  still  standing,  for  size  and  ap- 
pearance surpassing  any  house  built 
prior  to  that  date,  and  for  many  years 
aftorward.  in  Salem.  •  ♦  •  In  1693 
the  town  of  Salem  was  incorporateil 
into  a  borough,  and  the  authorities  of 
the  town  changed  the  name  of  Wharf 
Sjtreet    to    Bradway   Street,    in   honor   of 

Edward  Bradway."  What  an  imagin- 
ation had  this  author,  and  how  per- 
sistently did  he  use  fancy's  color- 
brush!     Or,  did  he  offer  us  tradition? 

While  it  is  true  that,  in  a  few  com- 
paratively recent  deeds,  Wharf  Street 
is  applied  to  this  thoroughfare  between 
the  present  dock  and  Market  street,  it 
is  not  true  that  such  was  the  name 
g-iven  to  it  in  1676,  or  for  many  years 
afterward.  In  the  early  records,  we 
find  mentions  of  the  "Town  Landing;" 
and  this  name  was  used  for  the  dock  at 
least  as  late  as  December  24,  1688. 
(Salem  Deeds,  4.  120.)  N.  J.  Arch.  21, 
furnishes  abstracts  of  deeds  and  sur- 
veys recorded  up  to  1704;  but  the  index 
of  this  volume  does  not  disclose  "Wharf 
Street."  Neither  does  the  index  of 
Arch.  23,  which  extends  to  1730.  In  the 
former  volume,  this  thoroughfare  is 
called  "the  highway;"  and  there  is 
every  probability  that  it  obtained  its 
present  name — as  did  streets  in  other 
cities,  simply  and  only  because  it  was 
the  broad  way  of  the  town,  and  not 
fiom  the  presence  in  this  county  of 
Edward   Bradway. 

In  September,  1676,  six  town  lots 
were  surveyed  along  the  north  side  of 
this  thoroughfare,  between  it  and  Pen- 
wiok  Creek — their  frontage  upon  it  ag- 
gregating about  half  a  mile.  Of  them, 
the  one  nearest  the  present  dock  con- 
tained 16  acres,  was  laid  out  to  John 
Smith,  and  was  bounded  as  follows: 
From  a  stake  marked  .IS.  by  the  high- 
way, north  by  ea.«t  ."i?  perches  to  a 
stake  by  Fenwick's  River,  or  Creek; 
thence  east  by  south  38  perches  to  a 
white  oak  marked  RH;  thence  south 
by  west  78  perches  to  a  stake  marked 
RH.  on  the  highway;  thence  west  by 
north  38  perches  to  the  place  of  begin- 
ning. Adjoining  Smith,  on  the  east. 
\va.=  the  16  acre  lot  of  Roger  Huckings. 
\\  ith  a  frontage  of  38  perches;  adjoin- 
ing Huckings  on  the  east  was  the  16 
acre    lot    of   Samuel    Nicholson,    with    a 

frontage  of  36  perches;  adjoining:  Nich- 
olson on  the  east  was  the  10  acre  lot  of 
Mark  Reeve,  with  a  frontage  of  18 
perches;  adjoining  Reeve  on  the  east 
was  the  10  acre  lot  of  Edward  Lumley, 
with  a  frontage  of  16  perches;  and  ad- 
joining Lumley  on  the  east  was  the  10 
acre  lot  of  Robert  Goulsbury,  with  a 
frontage  of  ....  perches.  (Fenwick's 
Sur.,  1,  1,  1;  Town  Grants,  1,  3;  Salem 
Sur.,   1.   18.) 

In  addition  to  his  16  acre  lot,  John 
Smith  had  6  acres,  which  were  deeded 
to  him  by  Fenwick  in  1679  (Town 
Grants,  p.  5),  and  were  bounded  as  fol- 
lows: From  a  stake  marked  JS,  by 
the  highway  to  Salem  landing,  along 
the  west  [should  be  east]  side  of  the 
highway  to  a  stake  marked  JS,  by 
Fenwick's  River;  thence  south  along 
the  west  side  of  his  16  acre  lot;  thence 
to  the  place  of  beginning.  These  two 
adjoining  lots,  aggregating  22  acres, 
were  sold  by  John  Smith  and  wife 
Martha,  of  Alloways  Creek,  to  Sarah 
Cannon,  on  June  4,  1683,  and  the  deed 
recites  the  bounds  of  both  lots.  (Salem 
Deeds,  2.  137.)  Sarah  Cannon  gave  all 
her  property  to  ner  daughter,  Sarah 
Pile.  (Salem  Wills,  2.  2.)  On  April  13, 
1686.  William  Hall,  as  attorney  for 
Sarah  Pile,  sold  the  said  22  acres  to 
Samuel  Carpenter,  who.  on  the  same 
date,  assigned  this  land  to  William 
Kelly,  a  weaver.  (Salem  Deeds,  4.  113, 
117.)      Kelly    retained    it    until   April    2, 

1691.  when  he  s  Id  it  to  William  Hall, 
late  of  Pilesgrove,  but  then  of  Man- 
nington  Creek,  and  his  wife,  Elizabeth. 
(Salem   Deeds,    5.    114.)      By   August    17. 

1692.  William  Hall  was  an  inn-holder  of 
Salem.  (Salem  Deeds,  5.  200.)  Now,  the 
»^'>-called  Bradway  House  stands  on  a 
part  of  the  16  acres  originally  laid  out 
to  John  Smith — title  to  which  has  here 
been  traced  to  William  Hall.  There  is 
every  reason  to  believe  that  this  house, 
which  bears  upon  its  east  gable  the 
date,    1691,   was   built  by   William   Hall. 


and  that  he  had  established  it  as  his 
inn  by  1692.  His  will,  dated  April  10, 
1713,  devised  to  his  son,  William,  the 
"capitall  house"  where  the  testaltor 
dwelt,  with  all  the  lots  bought  of  Wil- 
liam Kelly.  Salem  records  do  not  show 
that  Edward  Bradway  ever  owned  a 
house  or  lot  on  the  north  side  of  Broad- 
way, between  the  wharf  and  Market 

Edward  Bradway,  a  bargeman  or 
lighterman,  of  St.  Paul,  Shadwell,  co. 
Middlesex,  England,  bought  of  Fenwick 
1000  acres  on  May  6,  1675;  and  on  June 
23d,  following,  purchased  a  second  1000 
acres  of  John  Edridge.  (Salem  No.  i, 
pp.  52,  110.)  Bradway,  his  wife,  his 
daughters  Mary  and  Susannah,  and 
three  servants  arrived  in  Salem  in 
7  mo.  [September],  1677.  (Meeting  Rec.) 
The  first  land  laid  out  to  him,  as  far 
as  the  records  disclose,  was  his  tract 
of  984  acres  on  the  south  side  of  Allo- 
ways  Creek.  Next  was  surveyed  to  him 
his  984  acres  on  Stow  Creek.  Each 
purchaser  of  1,000  acres  had  a  right  to 
a  town  lot  of  16  acres  in  Salem,  and 
Bradway  had  two  there;  but  the  rec- 
ords do  not  designate  him  as  ever  a 
resident  of  Salem,  though  undoubtedly 
he  first  lived  there,  as  in  the  Meeting 
Records  a  minute  is  found  showing 
that  a  committee  of  four  was  appointed 
on  12  mo.  2d,  1679  iFebruary  2,  1679- 
80],  to  view  his  house,  and  see  if  it 
were  suitable  for  a  meeting-house.  As 
early  as  June  6,  1680,  he  was  of  Allo- 
ways  Creek  (Salem  Deeds,  5.  311);  and 
such  was  his  specified  abode  at  all 
later  times.  The  records  do  not  show 
when  liis  two  town  lots  were  surveyed, 
but  neither  of  them  was  on  Broadway,  as 
clearly  evidenced  by  the  bounds  named 
in  the  convejances  of  them.  The  16 
acre  lot  secured  by  virtue  of  his  pur- 
chase from  Fenwick  .was  sold  by  Brad- 
way to  Richard  Wilkinson,  December 
23.  1680.  On  three  sides,  it  was  bound- 
ed  by   marsh,  and   the  fourth  side   was 

not  said  to  be  on  any  highway.  (Salem 
Deeds,  3.  22.)  The  other  16  acre  lot 
he  conveyed  to  his  daughter,  Mary 
Cooper,  widow,  on  February  1,  1692-3. 
This  lot  then  had  a  house  upon  it; 
was  on  a  street  running  north-north- 
west; and  was  bounded  as  follows: 
From  a  red  oak  marked  CW,  by  a 
highway,  southwest  by  the  southeast 
side  of  Christopher  White's  plantation 
I  80  perches,  to  a  tree  marked  CW; 
thence  east-southeast,  by  the  marsh 
side,  16  perches  to  a  tree  marked  EB; 
thence  northeast  80  perches  to  a  stake 
I  marked  EB,  by  the  wayside;  thence 
I  north-northwest  down  the  highway  48 
1  perches  to  place  of  beginning.  (Salem 
I  Deeds,  5.  288.)  There  was  a  street 
'  named  for  Edward  Bradway — and  prob- 
ably this  lot  was  upon  it,  which  ap- 
pears of  record  as  Bradways,  Brada- 
ways,  Broadwayes.  and  Broadawayes 
street  (once,  in  1689,  as  "Edward  Brad- 
awayes  street"),  but  no  part  of  it  is 
I  specified  as  running  substantially  east 
I  and  west,  as  does  present  Broadway  be- 
tween the  wharf  and  Market  Street. 
Upon  this  Bradway's  Street,  under  its 
various  spellings,  Christopher  Saun- 
ders had  a  14  acre  lot  in  1679.  which  he 
sold  to  Jonathan  Beere  in  1686;  Rich- 
ard Robinson  had  a  10  acre  lot  in  1679. 
wjiich  passed  to  Edward  Lumley  in 
1686-7;  Joseph  White  had  a  10  acre  lot 
in  1684-5,  which  had  been  in  the  tenure 
of  Charles  Bagley;  and  Richard  John- 
son had  a  10  acre  lot  at  the  same  time.  had  formerly  belonged  to  Henry 
Jcn;ngs,  and  adjoined  that  of  Joseph 
W  liite.  The  bounds  of  these  various 
lo*3  prove  that  the  street  upon  which 
they  were  located  had  a  corner  in  its 
(.••■•iirse,  to  which  it  ran  northwesterly 
in  one  direction  and  southwesterly  In 
the  other.  A  portion,  at  least,  of  this 
highway  retained  its  name  as  late  as 
Dnember  10,  1737,  for  on  that  date  a 
public  road,  forty-five  feet  wide,  was 
lalJ.  out  "from  the  line  of  Mannington, 

on  Keasby's  Dam,  to  the  main  street 
in  Salem,"  the  survey  of  which  road 
rej. ds  as  follows:  "Beginning  at  the 
Old  Creek  at  the  aforesaid  Dam,  and 
run  west  33  rods,  10  links,  to  a  stake 
coj-ner;  thence  north  49  degrees  west, 
3S  rods  to  a  street  called  Bradway's 
Street;  and  thence  south  50  de- 
grees 30  minutes  west,  98  rods,  20 
links,  to  the  main  street,  on  Penny  Hill, 
v,'hifh  said  road  we  do  order  to  be 
opened  on  or  by  the  first  day  of  May 
nfxi.  and  at  the  same  time  we  do  va- 
oate  the  private  road  heretofore  laid 
o'U  fiom  the  aforesaid  Dam."  (Original 
paper  in  Salem  Co.  Hist.  Soc.  Archives.) 
EvMifntly  the  Bradway  Street  here 
named  was  not  a  part  of  Broadway,  but 
wa.-i  the  northerly  portion  of  present 
Johnson   Street. 


The  attention  of  the  writer  has  been 
called  to  a  movement  for  the  erection 
oi  a  monument  to  mark  John  Fen- 
wick'g  last  resting-place,  as  stated  in 
an  article  printed  last  May  in  one  of 
the  county  papers.  Laudable  as  such 
a  project  is,  we  are  met  by  the  fact 
that  no  real  proof  has  been  presented 
as  to  the  location  of  the  grave.  All 
the  information  we  have  concerning  the 
matter  is  hearsay,  or  tradition,  the  true 
value  of  which  is  always  uncertain  un- 
less it  can  be  unquestionably  proved, 
for  much  hearsay  has  been  found  badly 
awry,  when  determined  and  proper  ef- 
forts have  been  made  to  substantiate  it. 

As  evidence  that  Fenwick  was  inter- 
red in  a  certain  locality,  the  statement 
of  the  late  Robert  G.  Johnson  is  offer- 
ed. On  page  36  of  his  brochure,  we 
read  that  Fenwick  died  "at  his  planta- 
tion in  Upper  Marmington,  which  he 
called  Fenwick's  grove,  *  *  •  and 
was  buried  in  the  family  burying 
ground  about  two  hundred  yards  from 
the  main  road  leading  towards  the 
poor  house,  and  near  the  line  of  that 
farm.      I    believe    there    is    nothing    at 


this  time  [1839]  to  mark  the  place 
where  the  remains  of  that  adventurous 
and  great  man  lie,  except  a  thicket  of 
briars   and   brambles." 

Johnson  was  mistaken  in  manv 
things,  one  of  which  was  the  location 
of  Fort  Elfsborg,  in  the  erroneous  sit- 
uation of  which  no  Salem  County  man 
with  whom  he  conversed  on  the  sub- 
ject had  disagreed.  He  knew  that  his 
statements  were  not  wholly  accurate, 
for  on  page  170  we  find  the  following 

"I  am  aware  that  the  sketch  which  I 
have  given  you  of  the  historical  events 
thus  detailed  through  a  long  series  of 
year.s,  embracing  a  period  of  four  gen- 
erations of  mankind,  must  necessarily 
be  imperfect,  especially  as  I  have  been 
obliged  to  draw  largely  upon  memory, 
in  comparison  to  the  documents  whicn 
I  possess,  for  the  information  derived 
from  many  of  those,  my  near  and  dear 
friends,  who  have  long  since  gone  to 
their  silent  tombs." 

This  author  was  born  in  1771.  It  is 
in  no  degree  probable  that  he  became 
interested  in  history  before  his  four- 
teenth year  (1785).  If  at  such  early 
age  he  heard  a  statement  as  to  the 
place  of  Fenwick's  interment,  it  was 
one  hundred  and  two  years  after  the 
burial;  and,  for  aught  we  know,  It  was 
many  years  later.  He  could  have  had 
no  personal  knowledge  of  the  matter. 
What  he  said  as  to  the  situation  of 
the  grave  must  have  been  what  he  re- 
membered to  have  heard;  or  what  he 
thought  he  remembered  concerning  it, 
or  his  own  conclusions,  based  upon  we 
know  not  what.  At  best,  his  evidence 
is   purely   hearsay. 

What  and  where  is  the  proof  that 
Fenwick  had  any  "family  burying 
ground?"  The  only  members  of  his 
family  who  came  to  Salem  were  his 
three  daughters;  and  each  of  their  hus- 
bands had  his  separate  estate.  Ann 
Hedge    outlived    her   father    more    than 


twenty-three  years.  Elizabeth  Adams 
was  alive  February  12,  1682-3  (Salem 
Deeds,  2.19),  but  was  not  named  in  her 
father's  will.  Priscilla  Champneys  died 
soon  after  arrival,  while  Fenwick  was 
residing'  In  Salem.  We  have  no  evi- 
dence as  to  where  Priscilla  and  Eliz- 
abeth were  buried;  nor  do  we  know  of 
the  decease  of  any  of  Fenwick's  grand- 
children prior  to  his  demise,  or  where 
they  were  interred  when  they  passed 

The  late  Thomas  Shourds  has  also 
been  cited  for  the  location  of  the 
grave.  On  page  12  of  nis  book,  pub- 
lished In  1876,  we  find  the  following: 

"John  Fenwick  was  elected  one  of 
the  members  of  that  Dody  [the  Legis- 
lature] from  Salem  county,  In  the  fall 
of  1683,  but  being  unwell,  he  left  his 
home  in  Salem  and  went  to  Samuel 
Hedge's,  his  son-in-law,  in  Upper  Man- 
nington,  there  to  be  cared  for  by  his 
favorite  daughter.  Ann  Hedge, 
days,  for  he  died  a  short  time  after- 
wards at  an  age  of  65  years.  He  re- 
quested before  his  death  to  be  buried  i 
in  the  Sharp's  family  burying-ground,  ] 
which  was  complied  with.  The  said 
ground  was  formerly  a  part  of  the 
Salem  County  Almshouse  farm,  but 
now  belongs  to  Elmer  Reeve.  If  the 
ground  could  be  designated  where  the 
grave-yard  was,  although  the  exact 
spot  where  Fenwick  lays  could  not.  It 
would  be  a  grateful  deed  for  his 
descendants  and  the  citizens  of  this 
county  to  assist  in  erecting  a  monu- 
ment to  his  memory  there  on  the  spot 
where    the   grave-yard   was." 

No  author  so  unreliable  as  Shourds 
has  ever  written  of  Salem  County,  or 
it.s  families.  His  mistakes  were  legion. 
In  Learning  and  Spicer,  457,  we  find 
John  Fenwick's  name  among  the  mem- 
bers of  tlie  Legislature  in  May,  1683 — 
the  spring  of  that  year.  Fenwick'^ 
will  announces  that  he  signed  it  on  his 
sick   bed   at  Fenwick's   Grove,   and   that 

he  requested  to  be  buried  in  that  place. 
This  plantation  of  3,000  acres  he  leased 
to  Mary  White  on  August  2,  1683,  for 
twenty-one  years,  and  devised  to  his 
grandson,  Fenwick  Adams,  when  the 
latter  should  be  of  age,  who  was  to 
live  there  provided  he  behaved  peace- 
ably to  Mary  White.  Upon  it  was  lo- 
cated the  manor  house,  in  which  the 
executors  were  to  have  liberty  to  hold 
courts,  and  where  were  household 
goods  and  books.  It  is  evident,  from 
the  will,  that  this  was  not  Samuel 
Hedge's  domicile. 

No  person  named  Sharp  resided  with- 
in the  limits  of  Salem  County  earlier 
than  1704,  when  Isaac  Sharp  married 
Margaret  Braithwaite  (Meeting  Rec), 
and  is  said  to  have  established  hi.s 
home  at  "Blessington,"  now  Sharptown, 
about  two  miles  north  of  the  alleged 
location  of  the  graveyard.  One  of  their 
descendants  has  informed  the  writer 
that  the  land  which  included  the  burial- 
place  was  bought  by  Joseph  Sharp,  son 
of  Isaac,  about  1750 — nearly  seventy 
years  after  Fenwick's  death;  and  a 
mortgage  executed  by  Joseph,  in  1769. 
shows  that  he  purchased  property  in 
the   vicinity  in    1752. 

In  1876,  Shourds  did  not  know  where 
his  "Sharp's  family  burying-ground" 
was  located,  as  his  language  clearly 
shows;  yet,  ten  years  later — without 
any  evidence  that  he  had  obtained  proof 
in  the  meantime,  he  is  said  to  have 
agreed  with  Samuel  Kelty  upon  the 
place  where  Fenwick  was  interred 
These  two  men,  with  Dr.  Joseph  Hedge 
Thompson,  went  to  the  alleged  spot  In 
1886 — two  hundred  and  three  years- 
after  Fenwick's  demise;  and.  In 
Thompson's  report  of  the  visit,  the 
following  statement  appears:  "Every 
vestige  of  the  sacred  purpose  to  which 
this  ground  was  devoted  has  long 
since  been  effaced,  and  crops  are  an- 
nually gathered  from"  it.  According  to 
another     portion     of     this     report,     the 

Sharp  graveyard  was  without  the 
bounds  of  Fenwlck's  Grove,  in  Dr. 
Thompson's  estimation,  for  he  remark- 
ed that  Fenwick  requested  to  be  in- 
terred on  the  Grove  land,  "but  for 
some  unknown  reason  his  wish  was  not 
complied  with  and  his  remains  were 
deposited  in  the  burying  ground  of  the 
Sharp  family."  This  report  adopted 
Shourds'  view  that  Fenwick  passed 
his  last  days  at  the  house  of  Samuel 

William  Stuard,  a  colored  man,  is 
also  brought  forward  in  support  of  the 
situation  of  Fenwick's  grave;  but  his 
testimony  amounts  only  to  statements 
that  on  the  farm  of  Elmer  Reeve  there 
were  gravestones  in  1848,  which  were 
removed  by  the  owner  of  the  land  dur- 
ing the  following  two  or  three  years, 
when  the  ground  was  plowed  up. 
"There  was  talk  at  that  time  of  putting 
a  monument  to  Fenwick's  grave,"  he 
said,  "but  they  did  not  know  exactly 
which  it  was."  This  was  nearly  forty 
years  before  Shourds'  and  Kelty's  ami- 
cable agreement;  and  more  than  one 
hundred  and  sixty-five  years  after  Fen- 
wick's decease.  Not  one  of  the  stones 
referred  to  bv  this  witness  was  iden- 
tified as  that  of  any  named  person. 

John  B.  Reeve,  son  of  Elmer,  is  quot- 
ed as  remembering  "when  a  boy  see- 
ing these  gravestones  carted  from  this 
graveyard,  •  •  •  and  that  these, 
with  quoit  stones  gathered  from  the 
farm,  were  sold  for  masony."  This 
witness  also  "often  heard  his  father 
refer  to  Fenwick's  burial  in  the  old 
graveyard."  We  are  not  told  when 
Elmer  Reeve  listened  to  the  allegation, 
or   who   uttered   it. 

Lastly,  the  statement  of  Mrs.  Clark 
Pettit  is  cited,  who  "reports  that  her 
father  often  referred  to  the  spot,  tell- 
ing her  that  his  grandfather,  who  was 
born  in  1750,  and  lived  to  the  age  of 
81  years,  used  to  point  out  to  him 
when  a  boy,   this  location  as  the  place 


where  John  Fenwick  was  buried,  des- 
ignating the  same  site  as  that  fixed  up- 
on by  Messrs.  Thompson,  Shourds  and 
Kelty;"  and  Phyllis  Moore  agreed  with 
these  gentlemen.  If  we  assume  that 
Mrs.  Pettit's  great-grandfather,  at  the 
early  age  of  fourteen,  was  told  where 
Fenwick  was  said  to  have  been  buried, 
it  would  have  been  eighty-one  years 
after  the  interment;  and  it  may  have 
been  much  later.  As  Mrs.  Pettit's  father 
was  born  in  1815,  he  would  hardly  have 
heard  of  the  matter  until  about  one 
hundred  and  forty-five  years  after 
Fenwick's  death. 

Nothing  is  commoner  than  mistakes 
in  dates,  names  and  localities.  Erron- 
eous associations  of  individuals  with 
places  are  very  frequent.  Memory 
plays  us  all  many  tricks.  What  ori- 
ginally were  only  conjectures,  are  often 
later  asserted  to  have  been  stated  as 
fpcts.  Remarks  but  a  few  days,  or 
weeks,  old  are  wonderfully  changed  in 
passing  from  mouth  to  mouth,  as  we 
all  know.  What,  then,  is  to  be  said 
as  to  the  accuracy  of  attempted  repe- 
titions during  a  century  and  more? 
No  one  has  ever  claimed  that  a  stone 
had  marked  Fenwick's  grave,  or  that 
anything  had  designated  it,  as  far  as 
we  are  aware.  Burial  places  on  pri- 
vate property  were  abundant  in  the 
olden  time.  In  1764,  when  we  have 
assumed  that  the  elder  Mr.  Austin,  as 
a  boy,  may  have  heard  where  Fenwick's 
remains  were  said  to  have  been  de- 
posited, there  is  no  probability  that 
anj'  one  was  alive,  who,  even  as  a 
child,  had  attended  the  obsequies.  It 
is  quite  possible  that  the  alleged  sit- 
uation of  the  grave  was  based  upon 
the  statement  of  some  one  person, 
whose  memory  of  what  he  had  heard 
in  the  matter  was  badly  awry — whose 
association  of  name  and  place  was 
wrong;  or  who  stated  as  a  fact  what 
had   been   merely   conjecture. 


A  well-known  author,  of  much  ex- 
perience with  hearsay  evidence  in  con-  ; 
nection  with  local  history,  has  remark- 
ed:  "Sometimes  very  old  people  assert 
th:ii&s  as  facts,  which  they  verily  be- 
lieve and  have  often  told,  only  because 
their  extreme  age  has  destroyed  the 
power  of  accurate  discrimination — they 
confound  things;  and  yet  they  seem  so  sure 
and  so  plausible  that  weare  constrained  to 
believe  them,  until  subsequent  official 
or  written  data  of  the  true  time  and 
circumstances    disclose    the    truth.     • 

*  •  If  these  never  come  to  light  to 
contradict  the  former  assertion,  the 
oft  repeated  tale  goes  down  to  pos- 
terity unmolested  forever.  In  this 
manner  the  oldest  persons  in  Philadel- 
phia had  all  a  false  cause  assigned  for 
the  name  of  'Arch  street,'  and  it  was 
only  the  records  of  the  courts  which 
set  me  right."  (Watson's  Annals  of 
Phila.,    2.    14.) 

While,  at  present,  we  may  not  be 
able  to  offer  good  evidence  that  Fen- 
wick's  interment  did  not  take  place  in 
what  came  to  be  known  as  the  Sharp 
graveyard,  we  can  deny  that  any  prop- 
er proof  has  been  presented  that  this 
was  the  spot,  "for  all  is  hearsay  con- 
cerning it.  Further,  this  is  not  the 
only  location  that  has  been  claimed  as 
that  where  Fenwick  was  buried,  for  it 
has  been  asserted  that  his  sepulcher 
was  the  top  of  Big  Mannington  Hill. 
These  rival  sites  are  nearly  a  mile 

Fenwick's  earliest  residence  in  New 
.Jersey  was  in  Salem  Town.  Later,  he 
built     his    manor     house    in    Fenwick's 

Grove,  on  land  which  he  located  under 
John  Ashfield's  assignment  to  him  of 
1677.  There  is  every  probability  that 
this  house  was  his  residence  during  the 
last  years  of  his  life;  and  that  within 
five  hundred  feet  of  it  ne  was  buried. 
Unquestionably  define  the  position  of 
this  manor  house,  and  we  have  the 
probable  vicinity  of  his  grave;  but  to- 
ward which  of  the  thirty-two  points 
of  the  compass  from  this  dwelling,  or 
just  how  far  from  it,  his  body  was  de- 
posited, there  is  only  the  barest  possi- 
bility that  any  one  will  ever  be  able 
to  prove.  Why,  then,  under  the  condi- 
tions which  have  been  stated,  should 
an  attempt  be  made  to  erect  a  monu- 
ment purporting  even  approximately  to 
mark  the  grave?  Delusions  as  to  Sa- 
lem County  history  are  far  too  abund- 
ant. Why  run  the  risk  of  perpetuating 
one  in  a   matter  of  this   importance? 

The  real  object  of  this  movement  is 
to  honor  the  man.  No  place  is  so  suit- 
able for  that  purpose  as  the  city  of 
Salem — for  within  its  boundaries  the 
colonists  first  established  themselves; 
Salem  was  Fenwick's  and  their  head- 
quarters; it  has  always  been  the  county 
seat;  its  population  is  three  times  that 
of  the  largest  borough  or  township 
within  the  county.  Here,  a  memorial 
will  be  viewed  by  thousands,  while 
comparatively  few  will  ever  see  it  on 
any  spot  in  Upper  Mannington.  Let 
!  the  citizens  of  the  county  unite  upon 
]  Salem,  which  is  pre-eminently  the 
proper  historical  location  for  a  monu- 
ment to  John  Fenwick's  memory.  The 
site   of   his  grave   Is   unknown. 

0  014  208  605  0^